Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
A simple experiment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ayasano" data-source="post: 87398" data-attributes="member: 4804"><p>Then no, it wouldn't surprise me. That's just how evolution goes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the words don't seem to mean what you think they do. </p><p></p><p>Noah's flood cannot have happened exactly as it was described in the Bible because the geologic evidence doesn't match up. It would have had to have happened over much longer timescales than a human lifespan.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the first self-sustaining man-made nuclear reaction was Chicago Pile-1, but that wasn't weaponized so I supose it couldn't be considered a bomb. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1" target="_blank">Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>) You might also consider early supernovae as "nuclear bombs" in a sense, but again, they were neither man-made nor weaponized.</p><p></p><p>The first "lunar landing" would be the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, in a very literal sense. ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2" target="_blank">Luna 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a> ) The first <em>manned</em> landing would indeed be in 1969 though, yes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ayasano, post: 87398, member: 4804"] Then no, it wouldn't surprise me. That's just how evolution goes. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here because the words don't seem to mean what you think they do. Noah's flood cannot have happened exactly as it was described in the Bible because the geologic evidence doesn't match up. It would have had to have happened over much longer timescales than a human lifespan. Well, the first self-sustaining man-made nuclear reaction was Chicago Pile-1, but that wasn't weaponized so I supose it couldn't be considered a bomb. ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1"]Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]) You might also consider early supernovae as "nuclear bombs" in a sense, but again, they were neither man-made nor weaponized. The first "lunar landing" would be the Soviet spacecraft, Luna 2, in a very literal sense. ( [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_2"]Luna 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] ) The first [I]manned[/I] landing would indeed be in 1969 though, yes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
A simple experiment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top